ArticleJournal of clinical medicine research2015
Effect of distance and duration of illumination on retinal ganglion cells exposed to varying concentrations of brilliant blue green.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Macular peeling-induced retinal damage: clinical and histopathological evaluation after using different dyes.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2018Trial
- Safety profile of lutein-based blue dyes and surgical lights.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of the study was to determine the safety parameters of using brilliant blue green (BBG) for chromovitrectomy by assessing the cytotoxicity of BBG on cultured retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) exposed to illumination.
methodsRGCs were exposed to two concentrations of BBG (0.25 and 0.5 mg/mL) under metal halide illumination at varying distances (1 and 2.5 cm), intensities (990 and 2,000 Fc), and durations (1, 5 and 15 minutes). Cell viability was assessed using the WST-1 and CellTiter 96(®) AQueous One solution cell proliferation assays.
resultsUsing the WST-1 assay, with high-intensity illumination, viability of RGCs ranged from 97.5±16.4% of controls with minimum BBG and light exposure (0.25 mg/mL BBG and illuminated for 1 minute at 2.5 cm distance) to 53.1±11.3% of controls with maximum BBG and light exposure (0.50 mg/mL and illuminated for 15 minutes at 1 cm distance; P < 0.01). With medium-intensity illumination, RGCs showed better viability, ranging from 95.1±7.2% of controls with minimum BBG and light exposure to 72.3±12.8% of controls with maximum BBG and light exposure. CellTiter 96(®) AQueous One assay showed similar results.
conclusionRGCs seem to safely tolerate up to 5 minutes of exposure to 0.5 mg/mL BBG under diffuse medium-intensity illumination (990 Fc).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.